what does String.join do? On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> > Yeah, breaking changes - no chance, at least not for java7. > > But, there are plenty of API things that would be great to have, and > are forwards, backwards, migration, upwards, downwards, sideways, and > any other direction - compatible. > > For example, String.join. I mean, really, now. How can java make a > straight-faced claim of 'batteries included' without it? > > Last I heard, there's going to be a project-coin-like project for API > additions. Can't find the source (probably Joe Darcy's weblog at > http://blogs.sun.com/darcy/ but I can't find it after a quick scan of > project coin-related entries). > > I assume it won't be launched until at least Project Coin's submission > deadline passes (April 1st), but that doesn't give much time for API > additions. Then again, something as simple as String.join is coded up > and explained fully in a proposal in like an hour. > > > > On Mar 4, 9:53 am, Josh Suereth <[email protected]> wrote: >> Perhaps just making Cloneable and Serializable annotations, while >> deprecating the interfaces? >> >> Although the interfaces will probably not be removed before 1.8 or >> (dare I say it) 2.0, it would at least encourage using annotations >> the >> way they are meant to be used, and interfaces as, well, interfaces! >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:12 AM, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: >> >>>> Hey all, >> >>>> Project Coin is all about small language changes for Java 7, whats >>>> the >>>> changes of getting a project setup for "small interface/object >>>> changes" (although these could be breaking..) to fix some >>>> reallllllllllly annoying marker interfaces, i.e.: >> >>> You are unlikely to ever get a breaking change into core java. On >>> the >>> other hand, having modules in the language and JRE opens up some new >>> possibilities. >> >>>> * Add clone() to the Cloneable interface, and make Object's >>>> implementation abstract (or remove it compleately!) - make all >>>> classes >>>> in the JDK that implement clone(), implement Clonable (if they >>>> don't >>>> already) >> >>>> Is this a crazy idea (quite likely its absurd, but so is Cloneable >>>> NOT >>>> having clone() as a method. Any other stupid things like that >>>> could >>>> be cleaned up (even if they might break a few things along the >>>> way?) >> >>>> ...and then Buffy staked Edward. The End. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
